Book Review: Bates, K. A., & Swan, R. S. (Eds.) (2007). Through the Eye of Katrina: Social Justice in the United States. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press. xix, 420 pp

Abstract

notion was that God approved of the puritanical actions of the committee—this when the image of official justice was a blindfolded goddess with scales of justice in her hands. It must be added that public legal executions in California lasted longer than in most eastern states. It seems the audience’s gaze remained most important in the Golden State. Picture images of summary executions became a crucial part of popular culture. The book has numerous macabre photographs and colored plates showing the preand posthanging events. On a more bizarre level, the image of California’s most famous bandit (or desperado to carry the Anglo bias further into the vocabulary) was included. Joaquin Murrieta’s head was paraded throughout the state to prove he was dead and to exploit the wondrous gaze for those absent from his hanging. P. T. Barnum could not have done it better. Gonzalez-Day’s book is a powerful example of the strengths and weaknesses of interdisciplinary work. Appeal of such books must be measured by the audiences reading them. Authors need to communicate clearly to as many readers as possible. This author does write clearly, though the structure of the book gets fuzzy. Still, this book will have the strongest appeal to those artists familiar with the theories and techniques of photography and studio art. For the historian, however, it might be less appealing. First, the title is misleading or ambiguous at best. This is not a history of lynching in the West, its main focus being California. No one will doubt the importance of California, but it is not the West. Was California important because of the large number of Spanish speaking peoples, which fits into the ethic agenda of the author? Did not Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona have large numbers of Mexicans and Mexican Americans, and lynching? Why not call it lynching in California and be done with it? That is exactly what is wrong with this book; it seems unclear. Saddled with jargon of his field, the images the author wants us to see blur. In the last analysis, history is a story and this story lacks strong direction. The rhetoric and structure are not as clear as some of the ancient photos displayed. Finally, there is the criminal justice audience, the audience with which this review must be directly concerned. Those readers will find this book less satisfying and more confusing. Though there is some discussion of criminological theory, such as positivism, for the student and professor of criminal justice, this book will be easy to put aside. Such approaches should not be stifled. On the contrary, interdisciplinary work can be exciting and refreshing. However, such interdisciplinary authors have added responsibility to have strong organizational format with a minimum use of jargon. This book gets us part way there but generally falls short.